alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50670 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAYMUNDO NAVA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-234-ALL-PM

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Raymundo Nava-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Nava-Hernandez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Nava-Hernandez maintains that heNo. 03-50670 -2- pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Nava-Hernandez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### CHRYSLER, Appellant, v. WILKINSON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Sarah A. Chrysler against William D. Wilkinson, as executor, etc.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7265** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. SIKEO HARVELL BUTLER, a/k/a Keo , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:14

- cr - 00400

- HMH

- 6 )

Submitted : January 31 , 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON , KEENAN , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Sikeo Harvell Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bind ing precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sikeo Harvell Butler appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for copies at government expense . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

w e affirm for the reasons stat ed by the district court. United States v. Butler , No. 6:14

- cr - 00400

- HMH

- 6 (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not a id the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
              -----------------------------------------------------

                   CHASE CREDIT CARD OWNER TRUST SERIES 2002-1

              -----------------------------------------------------



         The undersigned, an Authorized Officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
National Association, as Administrator pursuant to the Indenture for the Chase
Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2002-1 does hereby certify that:

                  1.       The undersigned is an Authorized Officer pursuant to
                  the Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate to the
                  Indenture Trustee.

                  2.       This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.9
                  of the Indenture.

                  3.       A review of the activities of the Issuer during the
                  period from the closing date until December 31, 2003, and of
                  performance under this Indenture has been made under the
                  supervision of the undersigned.

                  4.       To the best of the undersigned knowledge, based on
                  such review, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and
                  covenants in all material respects under this Indenture
                  throughout the period from the closing date until December 31,
                  2003. No default in the compliance of any such condition or
                  covenant has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in
                  paragraph 5 below.

                  5.       The following is a description of each default in the
                  performance of the Issuer's obligations under the provisions
                  of the Indenture known to the undersigned to have been made
                  during such period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature
                  of each such default, (ii) the action taken by the Issuer, if
                  any, to remedy each such default and (iii) the current status
                  of each such default: NONE.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 30th day of March, 2004.

                                      By: CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA,
                                          National Association, as Administrator




                                      By: /s/ Patricia M. Garvey
                                          --------------------------------------
                                      Name:  Patricia M. Garvey
                                      Title: Vice President
DONALD STANLEY VERNE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0712

Opinion filed March 9, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Donald Stanley Verne, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 

2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CARLOS GUTIERREZ, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-4152

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed May 29, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee 

County; Hunter W. Carroll, Judge, and 

Stephen Dakan, Senior Judge.

Jason Reid of Carlson & Meissner, 

Bradenton, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Timothy A. Freeland, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
# C_2020255EN.01001601.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Wisniewski (Device of a chequerboard Pattern)

(Case T-105/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a chequerboard pattern - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Well-known facts - Distinctive character acquired through use - Overall assessment of the evidence of the distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 59(1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 255/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta and P.-Y. Gautier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Norbert Wisniewski (Warsaw, Poland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 (Case R 274/2017-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Wisniewski and Louis Vuitton Malletier.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 November 2018 (Case R 274/2017-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 November 2018 (Case R 274/2017-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
IIA 

Calendar No. 67 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 13 

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Libya and 

the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2011 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the first 

time 

MAY 24, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government 

of Libya and the Government and the people of the 

United States, and making provision to prosecute the 

same. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 13 PCS 

1 (1) a state of war between the United States 

2 and the Government of Libya is hereby formally de3 clared; and 

4 (2) the President is hereby authorized and di5 rected— 

6 (A) to employ the entire naval and military 

7 forces of the United States and the resources of 

8 the United States Government to carry on war 

9 against the Government of Libya; and 

10 (B) to issue to private armed vessels of the 

11 United States commissions or letters of marque 

12 and general reprisal, in such form as the Presi13 dent shall think proper, and under the seal of 

14 the United States, against the vessels, goods, 

15 and effects of the Government of Libya. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 67 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 13 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Declaring that a state of war exists between the 

vision to prosecute the same. the people of the United States, and making proGovernment of Libya and the Government and 

MAY 24, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021009EN.01001501.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2020 — AV and AW v Parliament

(Case T-173/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Reimbursement of medical expenses - OLAF investigation - Article 85 of the Staff Regulations - Recovery of undue payments)

(2021/C 9/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: AV and AW (represented by: L. Levi, S. Rodrigues and J. Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: T. Lazian and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Parliament of 23 July and 1 August 2018 recovering from one applicant the sum of EUR 5 289 and from the other applicant the sum of EUR 3 880, on the ground of undue payment having been made to them as reimbursement of medical expenses.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court hereby:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH WALLS,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellant,

v.

BRUCE BURTON and

KOLAWOLE AKINBAYO,

Defendants Below,

Appellees.

§

§ 

§ No. 214, 2019

§

§ Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. N16A-10-012

§ 

§

§

§

§

Submitted: July 22, 2019

Decided: July 26, 2019

O R D E R

After the appellant, Joseph Walls, filed this appeal, he filed a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis. This Court denied that motion on June 5, 2019, under 

10 Del. C. § 8804(f). The Court ordered that if Walls did not pay the filing fee on 

or before June 20, 2019, the appeal would be dismissed without further notice. On 

June 18, 2019, this Court granted a request by Walls for an extension of time to pay 

the filing fee. The Court ordered that if Walls did not pay the filing fee by July 20, 

2019, the appeal would be dismissed without further notice. Walls did not pay the 

filing fee by July 20, 2019.
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 3(b)(2), 

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent Of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-211788,333-211790, 333-186533,333-169926,333-136316, and 333-100900) of our reports datedMarch 14, 2017 on (i) the consolidated financial statements of Medallion Financial Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 and for each of the three years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2016 and onthe selected financial ratios and other data for each of the five years in the five-year period ended December 31, 2016, and the consolidated schedules of investments in and advances to affiliates as of and for the years ended December 31,2016 and 2015; (ii) the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016; (iii) the financial statements of Medallion Bank as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 and for each of the three years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2016; and (iv) the consolidated schedules of investments as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, all of which appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of MedallionFinancial Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2016. 

/s/ Mazars USA LLP 

New York, New York 

March 14, 2017
# C_2021053EN.01003402.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Azarov v Council

(Case T-286/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 53/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Van Blaaderen and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr. Mykola Yanovych Azarov was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr. Mykola Yanovych Azarov was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United
States Code, the undersigned, Michael T. Kennedy, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Radnor Holdings Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that:



The Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the most recent fiscal quarter (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: May 7, 2004 |  | /s/ Michael T. Kennedy               
|                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  | (Principal Executive Officer)        



A signed original of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2020045EN.01001401.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/14

---

Appeal brought on 24 September 2019 by Ramón Guiral Broto against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-773/17 Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)

(Case C-714/19 P)

(2020/C 45/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Ramón Guiral Broto (represented by: A. Sirimarco, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Café del Mar, SC, José Les Viamonte and Carlos Andrea González

By order of 12 December 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Steven Dinetz, Chief Executive Officer of NextMedia Operating, Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NextMedia Operating, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions based upon the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change
in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                               
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2004 |  | /s/  Steven Dinetz            
|                     |  | Name: Steven Dinetz           
|                     |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer